The trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering a preliminary injunction under the CLRA against defendants continuing to sell puppies which they falsely claimed were healthy but in fact were not and died in many cases within days after sale.  Defendants’ main argument on appeal was that the evidence didn’t show that they sold the puppies that plaintiffs’ bought.  The Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence to support the finding that defendants were the sellers.  In balancing the equities, the court notes that defendants were in the curious position of trying to argue that they weren’t in the business of selling puppies, but an injunction banning them from doing so would irreparably injured them.